The 10 Least Wanted Sequels of 2009
A Seriously Random List XLII / Dustin Rowles
Seriously Random Lists | January 14, 2009 | Comments (75)
Since we covered 2009’s 10 least wanted remakes yesterday, it’s only fair that we cover 2009’s sequels today. There are currently 17 sequels scheduled to be released this year (undoubtedly, a few more will be added before the year is out). And while there was only one remake (Wolf Man) that we have any hopes for, there are a few sequels that we’re excited about in 2009, including: the Statham pleasure, Crank 2; Terminator: Salvation (despite the presence of McG); Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince; Final Destination 4D (there can never be enough Final Destination flicks), and Toy Story 3D (it’s Pixar, so sequel or not, it’s gonna rock). In fact, there’s only one sequel that we’re indifferent to: Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. I suspect it’ll be no damn good, but there are worse things than watching Scrat steal another movie.
But then there are the sequels that make us want to chew our own faces off to avoid seeing these. These are the top 10:
10. Saw VI: This will be the sixth year in a row that Halloween will be graced with another Saw movie. It was kind of ridiculous after three and four, but at this point, the plotlines have hit the absurdity point. Saw movies are a Halloween mainstay, and we’ve grown numb to them.
9. Halloween 2: I think we got most of our vitriol out when Rob Zombie decided to remake the classic. The sequel to the remake will undoubtedly blow in that super-fast, choppy way that only Zombie can manage, but this is another sequel that we’ve sort of resigned ourselves to. We can probably expect a Zombie-directed Halloween movie at the end of every summer for the next decade. You can expect number three to be in 3D.
8. . X-Men Origins: Wolverine: Lookit: I’ve already mentioned that I heard that filming the movie was a disaster, and Gavin Hood (Tsotsi) is both a better director than this movie deserves and completely inappropriate for it. It’s not gonna be a good movie: Mark my words. But, it’s hard to get too terribly upset about it; after all, it has three things going for it: Hugh Jackman, Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool, and Taylor Kitsch as Gambit (though, I’m hearing grumblings that Kitsch was way out of his depth, but still … ). You can salvage a lot with some decent eye candy.
7 . Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squekuel: The title alone merits its inclusion here, and it will undoubtedly be one of the three worst movies on this list, quality-wise. And yes: This one will further tarnish the reputations of Jason Lee and David Cross. But it’s still a kid’s movie, so it falls mostly under the Pajiba radar. We will hate it, but mostly from afar (except for poor Agent Bedhead, who will undoubtedly be stuck with the review).
6. Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li: I have no idea what number this is in the series, but after seeing the trailer, the only real question I have is: Why is this movie not straight to DVD? Not only does it look heinous, but it has virtually no chance of recouping its marketing budget, even if its marketing budget is limited to a guy standing outside of a theater in a Sandwich board reading, “Come See Our Shitty Film!”
5. Pink Panther 2: Oh, Steve 2.0. You hurt us once with the remake. Now why you gotta twist the knife man with a remake sequel. You’re way better than this. And you got no kids, so who are you trying to make all this money for? I hope you leave it to someone good. Maybe you can create an endowment for The New Yorker and keep it alive for another 30 years, and maybe — just maybe — you can leave 30 years worth of brilliant pieces for the magazine to publish. That’s a far better legacy than the one you’re leaving (not that Steve will ever die, of course. He will only be reincarnated as different versions of himself. I hope 3.0 is better). Have you seen the trailer? You’ll wish you hadn’t.
4. Fast & Furious: What are they trying to do here? Instead of calling it The Fast and the Furious IV, which is actually what it is, the marketing team has simply added an ampersand and dropped the sequel number. Is this supposed to mean something? You bring back the original cast (Paul Walker, Vin Diesel, and Michelle Rodriguez) and we’re supposed to believe that the diminishing returns will reverse itself? Don’t flatter yourself. The first movie was no goddamn good, so there’s no reason to believe that bringing back the original and throwing in an ampersand will make this one any better. Brother, please.
3. Angels and Demons: Tom Hanks has made the occasional mediocre film in his career, but The Da Vinci Code franchise feels like it’s the only true cash grab in his oeuvre. Hanks is a smart man; he’s a helluva lot smarter than Dan Brown. And he often makes blandly compelling movies. Why the need to make another plain old bland one? Is he really that excited about bringing back the ridiculous coif? Is he in a competition with Nic Cage to see who can have the most ridiculous hairstyle? Or were there really a lot of complex theological questions left unanswered by the original? Come on, Hanks. Give it a rest, old boy. Don’t waste all that box-office clout peddling pseudo-religious smut.
2. Night at the Museum: Escape from the Smithsonian: Unless he’s starring opposite a man in black-face, there is never any excuse to put Ben Stiller on the big screen, especially under the guise of a history lesson for feces-eating juveniles. That’s what Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure was for, and we sure as hell don’t need a bunch of kids growing up whose first impression of Teddy Roosevelt came from Robin Williams or Owen Wilson depicting a historical figure that no one has never heard of, nor cares to ever hear about. But mostly Escape from the Smithsonian will suck for the exact same reason that Night at the Museum sucked: Ben Stiller. The man is to comedy what Anne Coulter is to femininity, which is to say that I hope Ben Stiller chokes on Anne Coulter’s Adam’s apple.
1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: We all know what to expect with Revenge of the Fallen. It will look vaguely similar to Transformers, which is to say, it’ll look vaguely similar to every other film Michael Bay has ever made. It will make $700 billion, or just enough money to keep a bidet surgically attached to Michael Bay’s ass, so it’s clean at all times and he’ll never have to wipe again. But here’s why Revenge of the Fallen is this year’s least wanted remake: For six weeks leading up to its release date, Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox will be omnipresent. They will be on every talk show, on every commercial, and on every cereal box and Big Mac in America. Hollywood will beam them from the sky and into your dining rooms every night, via hologram. Megan Fox will prattle on about her sexual appetite, and Shia LaBeouf will blow hologram smoke in your face. They’ll be like “SNL’s” Two A-holes — she’ll twirl her hair and ask for a bunny, and he’ll make headlines on every newspaper in America for committing an unfuckingbelievably petty crime. And have you ever heard of Josh Duhamiel? Well, by June 26th, you will. Michael Bay et. al. have actually come up with a microchip that can be implanted in your brain via GPS. Part of Revenge of the Fallen’s marketing plan involves inserting Duhamiel into your dreams — he won’t do any funny business. He’ll just stand there and remind you to go see Revenge of the Fallen while you’re making love to your high-school English teacher. And the only way to turn it off is to actually go see it. I’ll see you there!
Comments
Posted by: dammitjanet at January 14, 2009 3:09 PM
Suckage galore. Especially the Pink Panther....what the hell? I wish Peter Sellers would return from the dead and sic the minkey on all the asswads involved in rifling thru his legacy. Anybody touches Being There and they DIE!!!!
However, I probably will see "Wolverine" just for the pretty, pretty eye candy. Isn't Liev Schrieber in that, too? OK THEN!!!
Umm, my 14 year old son is excited about "Underworld-Rise of the popcans" or what the hell ever it is. Just because he gets an early pubescent stiffy from Kate Beckinsale in pleather.